Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-05-07

hence there is no question of whisky
before the people.
We object to Maine in the constitution
of Texas.
Prohibition may crafty the fanatics but
it cannot make men out of pig tails.
There would be mountains of trials,
mole hills of convictions and worlds and
seas of strife, hypocrisy and taxpaying.
Every man should be his own judge as
to whether he will make his grapes,
blackberries, hops, peaches into wine or
brandy, either for table or sickness.
A large proportion of our population
use wine and beer, as the strict Prohibi-
tionists use tea and coffee.
We object to paying doctor $3.50 for
proof that we are sick enough to justify g
dealer to sell free man intoxicsnts.
We object to paying doctor 81 per
mile both ways before the sick can have
the sweet privilege of paying $3.50 for a
prescription for intoxicants.
We protest against all foolishness in
matters of legislation.
Absolute prohibition is the rule in all
penitentiaries, but statistics proclaim
that while it prohibits it does no good.
The greatest and best men of the past
were not prohibitionists, and it is safe
rule to Judge the future by the past.
The prohibition resolution is a nullity.
1t does not prohibit Importation.
1t cannot suppress either the manufac-
ture or sale of intoxicating liquors.
The distillery will manufacture for med
icsl, scientific and mechanical purposes,
and the dealer will buy for these pur-
poses, iaEd the standing list of our sick,
scientific and mechanical, will out-Herod
the sick list OF an army on the eve of a
great battle.
To those who say the issue is saloon
or no saloon, we say the state has the
power to control and regulate and put
down the saloon, apart from the resoIu-
ton, which is fraud and farce on its
face. Prohibition will not oh ain, until
the seed of corn, rye, hops and fruits are
lost and this calamity would cause the
race to disappear from the face of the
earth Sulphur Springs Echo.
From the State Comptroller's report
for the year ending November l, 1886,
we gather the following data concerning
the liquor traffic in Texas. During the
year 1886 the number of license issued
for the sale of spirituous, Vinous and
malt liquors was:
1860 retail liquor dealers. Taxes on
same. ...... ....................S37 1913 600
80 wholesale dealers. Faxes on same 600
305 quart dealers. Taxes on same. $1,000
$50 beer dealers. Taxes on same. A 800
Taxes on all liquors for 1886. $492 800
This information will be found on page
of the Comptroller's report. 1t will be
seen by this that the claim made by Judge
Clark and other advocates of liquor that
1000, 900 would be "lost in revenue" if
prohibition prevailed, Is an erroneous
one, and that when the amendment is
adopted the decrease of taxes paid in will
be less than half million.
It is well TO keep in mind that while
the state only collected license in 1856
from less than $500 saloons of all kinds,
the national internal revenue department
collected occupation taxes during the
same period for 4O3O saloons, showing
that there were in 1885 over 1900 rum
shops that were beating the state out of
it's part of the blood money.
The Comptroller's report further shows
that the grand total of taxable values for
1886 was $3.50, 525, 1923.
By simple and easy calculation it will
be seen that if the traffic in Intoxicating
liquors should be stopped, and it did no
good whatever in the matter Of saving
large sums Of money to the taxpayers
themselves, it would neCessitate an in
crease in assessments or less than one
sixteenth of l per cent, on all property to
make up the deficit. But by an honest
and candid investigation of the question
that deficit will turn out to be very
large profit, instead of being a deficit at
all.
By a reference to the report of the
United States Treasury Department is
sued in April of this year it will be seen
that it is estimated by the very best eu-
thorities on the subject that the average
cost of liquors of all kinds to the people
of the United States is Sl2 so per capita
each year. This is the average for men,
women and children. Estimating that
Texas has a population of $780,
900 people this would show the
direct cost of the liquor traffic
to the people of Texas annually to be
$43 $50, 600, sum equal to almost s per
cent. of the entire taxable values of the
state.
Nor Is this all. By again referring to
the Comptroller's report it is found that
it costs an average of 100000 year to
keep up our state asylums. 1t is also
found that it costs IN round numbers
$780, 900 year to pay the expenses of cur
judiciary. Here is almost 81, 900, 000-an
amount nearly double the taxes paid by
the liquor traff1c-and it is susceptible of
demonstration that eight-tenths of the
insanity and crime in Texas is due
directly to the use of liquor. And,
looking at the question from purely
business standpoint, it is clearly shown
that while the average cost of liquor
year for every man, woman and child in
Texas is $3.50 each, the revenue derived
from the liquor traffic is less than Is cents
per capita. This would leave clear
gain to every man, woman and child in
Texas of $l2.35 year under prohibition,
making grand total of almost S40,000,-
900 saved to the people of Texas each
year. If it is argued that prohibition
does not prohibit we may, for arguments
sake, agree that it only half prohibits.
Then, and in that event, the net saving to
the people of Texas would be in the
of 500, 900, 900 a year.
The state might, if 1t could, put IL
cense on the manufacture of counterfeit